\J" ] ' i (:M-W 



UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BULLETIN 
NEW SERIES ' VOL. 2 NO. 6 



State normal School Systems 

of the 

United States 



1905 



H. D. SHELDON, PH. D. 

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 



Issued Bi-monthly. Published by the University, Eugene. November, 1905. 
Entered January^, 1904, at Eugene, Oregon, as second class matter under Act 
of Congress of July 16, 1894. 






UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS. 

Public School Libraries - September, 1903 

Beowulf January, 1904 

Water Power on the McKenzie River - - March, 1904 

Mineral Resources and Mineral Industries of Oregon May, 1904 
Water Power on the Santiam - - - November 1904 

Tendencies in Recent American Road Legislation January, 1905 
General Register of the University of Oregon - March, 1905 
General Announcements ----- May, 1905 



a. 



STATE NORMAL SCHOOL 
SYSTEMS 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES 



Compiled by 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

University of Oregon 



■ 



• 



■ 



■ 



UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BULLETIN 
NEW SERIES VOL. 2 

Published by th° University, Eugene, Oregon. Issued Bi-Monthly 
NOVEMBER, 1905 



PREFACE. 

It is the aim of the present paper to present the most im- 
portant facts, statistical and otherwise relating to state systems 
of normal schools in the United States in brief and convenient 
form. In order that all the facts upon which the conclusions 
are based may be as accessible to the public as to the writer, the 
statistical summary and the replies to the circular letter on 
normal school systems are printed in full in the appendix. 

At first sight, it may seem strange that the figures for tne 
year 1902-03 should be the latest obtainable. The United States 
bureau of education which furnishes these statistics works with all 
possible dispatch, but the enormous magnitude of the task and the 
difficulty of securing; prompt returns pre* hide more rapid tabula- 
tion and publication. The writer is also indebted to the following- 
books for information : Gordy, J. P., Rise and Growth of the Nor- 
mal School Idea in the United States; Washington, 1891, Dexter, 
.E G., A History of Education in the United Stater, New York, 
1904 and Hinsdale, B. A., Training of Teachers in Butler's Mono- 
graphs on Education, Vlo. I,, Albany, 1900. 

In some cases, the writer has referred to certain states as 
having one normal school, when very recently this policy has been 
departed from and one or two new institutions established. These 
schools are too new to have effected conditions, so that in com- 
paring results, there is no injustice in classing these common- 
wealths with states which have never departed from the one 
central school idea. 



STATE NORMAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED 

STATES. 

The first legislative recognition in America of the necessity 
of special training schools for teachers was given by the state of 
New York in the year 1835 and took the form of a small appro- 
priation for the support of teachers' training classes in a few 
of the academies of the commonwealth. Four years iater, Massa- 
chusetts, having small faith in the efficiency of the academy 
idea, founded, at the old historic town of Lexington, the first in- 
stitution in America having for its sole purpose, the preparation 
of teachers. For some years Massachusetts found few imitators. 
New York was the first to follow in 1844, Connecticut founded 
a normal school in 1849, Michigan 1850, Rhode Island 1852, Illin- 
ois, 1857, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey 1859. By 1875 
normal schools were establisheed as an integral portion of the 
educatioanl system, in all the states of the union save eight. At 
that date there were seventy schools in operation training more 
than fifteen thousand students. 

The normal school system of the country has been rapidly 
gaining strength in the last few years. In the period fro;--> 1889- 
90 to 1902-03 the number of public normals increased from 135 
to 177, the number of students in strictly normal courses from 
26,917 to 49,175 and the number of graduates from 
4,413 to 8,782. While the attendance did not quite double in 
this period of thirteen years, the sum total of appropriations 
more than doubled, as the commissioner of education records 
$1,312,419 total annual appropriation for current expenses of 
normal school at the beginning of this period as against $3,582,- 
168 at the end. These sums do not include special appropria- 
tions for buildings and repairs. 



6 University of Oregon Bulletin 

Separate normal schools are established by law a ad sup- 
ported by appropriations in forty-four out of the fifty states and 
territories constituting the continental possessions of the United 
states. Of the six without separate normal schools, three, Wy- 
oming, Utah and Nevada provide for normal training in con- 
nection with their state universities. Delaware, the fourth, sends 
her normal students to the institutions of the otiier states for 
their training, leaving only Alaska and Indian Territory without 
provision for the training of teachers. Of the more important 
states of the Union, Ohio alone, for many years stood out against 
the establishment of public normals, but within the last two 
years, this attitude has been changed and two institutions for the 
training of teachers founded. 

Among the states of the union, two divergent lines of policy 
in regard to the location and size of normal schools have been 
followed. In many states, number of moderately sized schools 
have been established, each school ministering to the needs of 
one particular section. Among the advocates of the policy are 
New York with nineteen public normal schools, Pennsylvania 
with fifteen, Massachusetts ten, Wisconsin nine. West Virginia 
and Minnesota six, California and Illinois five and numerous 
other states having more than one school. Twenty years ago 
there was an almost equally long list of states concentrating 
their energies on one strong central school. This list included 
such important and influential states as Michigan, New Jersey, 
Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Colorado. In recent 
years, the increase of population and wealth together with 
pressure of localities remote from the central school, has caused 
a number of these states to reverse their policy, so that now 
Michigan and Connecticut each support four schools. A num- 
ber of these states, however, still maintain their former policy. 

The number of normal schools in a state has small meaning 
until we know the size of the constituency. For instance. New 
York, (19 normal schools), having an estimated population in 
in [903 of 7,659,814 persons has only one normal school for ap- 
proximately every 400,000 persons, while Idaho with two nor- 
mal schools has one for every 90,000 persons. In Pennsylvania 
there is one nornfal school for every 450,000 of population Mass- 



University of Oregon Bulletin 7 

achusetts, one for every 300,000 ; Wisconsin, one for every 230,- 
000; California one for every 300,000; Illinois one for every 
1,000,000. One normal school for each 400,000 persons represents 
the average in those states which have been, for man}/ years 
committed to a policy of local schools. 

As to the cost of maintaining schools, there is the widest 
possible variation from Mississippi with an average annual out- 
lay of $1,435 P er school and Vermont with $6,723 at one end of 
the scale to the great central school of Iowa enjoying a revenue 
of more than $140,000 per year at the other. The average income 
in 1902-03 per normal school in some of the larger northern states 
devoted to the policy of local school is as follows : New York, 
$38,000; Pennsylvania, $43,000; Illinois, $42,000; Massachusetts, 
$33,000; California, $38,000 and Wisconsin $39,000. States de- 
pending on one large central school, naturally appropriate to a 
single school larger sums than the foregoing. In this class 
chiefly are Indiana, $72,500; Kansas, $70,000; Colorado, $67,000 
and Rhode Island, $64,000. 

The $3,500,000 spent by the states of the union on normal 
education is distributed by no means evenly. Of the states 
which possess systems of such efficiency as would entitle them 
to consideration, there is a vast difference. It costs Indiana only 
$28 and Nebraska $31 per 1,000 persons to support their normal 
school systems. Washington on the other hand spends $225 per 
1,000 persons or almost ten times as much. Wisconsin with 
an outlay of $164 per 1,000, Colorado $117 per 1,000, California 
with $121 per 1,000, Oklahoma $181 per i ; ooo and Rhode Island 
$140 per 1,000 are among the highest in the union. The average 
is represented by Massachusetts, $89 per 1,000, Michigan $61 per 
1,000, Minnesota %jy per 1,000, New York $80 per 7,000. Pennsyl- 
vania $78 per 1,000, South Dakota $75 per r,ooo and Iowa $60 per 
1 ,000. 

A truer test of the economy of the system is found in the 
cost per year of training each student enrolled. The factors de- 
termining this are, first, the amount of support and secondly, the 
number of students. A state appropriating a large sum to nor- 
mal education if it has a large number of students, may have a 
lower rate per student than a state with small appropriation and 



8 University of Oregon Bulletin 

few students. Here again we find most startling contrasts be- 
tween extremes. Kansas trains teachers at an annual cost of $36 
per student, Rhode Island pays $294 for the same service. Among 
the more expensive states are Colorado, $248 per student, Mass- 
achusetts $150, Oklahoma $141, South Dakota, $192, Washington 
S189, Wisconsin, $140. In the group of moderate expense are 
Michigan $98 per student, Minnesota $115, New York $106, 
Pennsylvania $84, Illinois $75 and West Virginia $98. 

Another question of fundamental importance is the capacity 
of the normal schools to meet the demand for trained teachers. 
If the testimony of the state superintendents and normal school 
principals is to be relied upon, the percentage of trained teachers 
is rapidly increasing throughout the country. Of the common- 
wealths replying to circular letter, Arizona leads with 60 per 
cent of teachers trained in normal schools, Utah follows with 50 
per cent. The percentage for the other states replying runs 
as follows: Massachusetts 46 per cent, California 38 per cent, 
Connecticut 36 per cent, Indiana 20 per cent, Illinois 10 per cent, 
Iowa, \2y 2 per cent, Kansas 10 per cent, Louisiana 33 1-3 percent, 
Maine 23 per cent, Minnesota 25 per cent, Missouri 15 per cent, 
Xew Jersey 2>3 I_ 3 percent, New York 25 per cent, South Carolina 
25 per cent, Vermont 24 per cent, Wisconsin 35 per cent. These 
figures are in nearly all cases approximate and in some instances 
pure estimates, so that too much importance should not be at- 
tached to them. However, there is no good reason for rejecting 
the general conclusion from them that of the 450,000 elementary 
teachers in the United States in 1902-03, about 100,000 or in the 
neighborhood of 22 per cent have had considerable normal train- 
ing and that probably 15 per cent are normal graduates. 

The significant fact that less than 25 per cent of our teachers 
are properly prepared for their work does not mean that we 
should be compelled to establish four times as many normal 
schools costing four times as much money in order to prepare 
the other 75 per cent. Many of the normal schools are new and 
have a proportionally small percentage of graduates, others could 
accommodate a considerably larger number of students without 
extra expense. There is also a slow tendency toward a longer 
term of service, particularly in large towns and cities, so in the 



University of Oregon Bulletin 9 

future not so many new teachers will be needed. That more new 
schools will be needed especially in rapidly growing" sections of 
the country and in those states where the existing normals are 
not adequate to the needs, is of couse, evident, but it may serious- 
ly be questioned whether it would at present be advisable at one 
stroke of the pen to double the number of normal schools, were 
such a step possible. 

A fact of considerable significance in this connection is re- 
ported by a number of superintendents and principals, viz. that 
nearly the entire product of the normal school is absorbed by the 
graded schools, leaving the country schools largely untouched 
by normal school influences. Thus the sLate superintendent of 
Iowa reports that there are many normal school graduates in 
town, few in the country. According to the state superintendent 
of Montana, the normal graduates after a term or two of exper- 
ience in the country, all settle in the town schools In Wiscon- 
sin one of the normal school principals estimates that of 9,000 
country school teachers in that state, only 1,000 are normal grad- 
uates, 3,500 others having attended without graduation. On the 
other hand nearly all of the 3,500 teachers in graded schools have 
received a normal training. In states like California where good 
wages are paid in the country districts, many normally trained 
teachers are found there. 

It is hardly necessary to point out that this undesirable state 
of affairs in regard to country schools is in no manner due to the 
normal school, but to the ordinary laws of business and trades by 
which the most efficient workers go where wages are highest 
and conditions best. At the present time, it is undoubtedly true 
that the wages paid in the country districts of man}* states would 
hardly justify any person spending three years of time and $800 
in cash in preparation for service in them. Yet nowhere is further 
training more needed than among the country teachers. The best 
temporary solution of this problem is to be found in the establish- 
ment of brief summer schools with course of 10 to 12 weeks in 
length, one for each county or small group of counties. As these 
schools would be in session during the summer months, the 
faculties of normal schools and outside schoolmen of experience 
could be utilized at moderate expenses to the state. An appro- 



io . University of Oregon Bulletin 

priation of $10,000 spent in this manner would produce ? more 
immediate and powerful effect for good on the rural school than 
any other measure which could be devised. However, such a 
measure must necessarily be regarded as temporary, a twelve 
weeks review of element subjects and methods can never be 
the equivalent of a good normal school course. 

In order to secure the experience of other states, the depart- 
ment of education in the University of Oregon issued a circular 
letter to the state superintendent and normal school principals of 
the country. Twenty state superintendents and fifty-two princi- 
pals answered the letter. The replies are printed in the appendix 
to this bulletin. Nearly all the most important normal school 
states are well represented in the list of answers, notably New 
York, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, 
Iowa, Kansas and California. The two most important questions 
asked in the circular were the following : 

1. Is one large central normal school preferable to a number 
of normal schools? Why? 

2. If a state supports a number of normal schools, should 
they be controlled by one central board, by separate local boards 
for each institution or by a combination of the two? 

It was not supposed that the categorical replies one way or 
another, would be particularly valuable as there would be a 
strong tendency for each superintendent or principal to defend the 
system in vogue in his own state. In the arguments and facts 
advanced to support these views, it was hoped that some light 
might be thrown on the general principles of the subject which 
might embody the best experience. The actual replies more 
than satisfied this hope as we shall see. While there were all pos- 
sible shades of individual opinion, there emerges from the dis- 
cussion a very generally accepted body of conclusions. These 
conclusions can, perhaps, be most clearly stated as arguments 
pro and con. 

One of the strongest arguments in favor of a system of 
local schools, is the fact that in most states, the students of a nor- 
mal school come from closely adjacent regions, so that in general 
a system of local schools reaches more students and therefore 
trains more teachers than can a single central school. All the 
more populous states having a large percentage of normally train- 



University of Oregon Bulletin i 1 

ed teachers like Wisconsin, Massachusetts and California are 
states which maintain a system of local schools. There is much 
testimony to this effect from the replies. One of the most inter- 
esting written by the principal of the Milwaukee normal, dis- 
cusses conditions in Michigan. "My native state is Michigan 
where for years they have had one large normal school. Investi- 
gation showed that ninety per cent of its attendance was drawn 
from adjacent counties. It was not big enough to make itself felt 
throughout the state. Within the past eight year-, three new 
normal schools were established in Michigan. The attendance at 
the central school has materially increased and the three other 
schools are full. Each one of the schools draws largely from its 
own locality." 

There are one or two striking exceptionstothisgeneralization. 
Iowa and Kansas at the time of the publication of the last com- 
missioner's report had practically only a single school, yet the 
number of normal students trained was relatively large, Iowa 
having 2,231 students or 1 for each 1,047 °f population. Kansas 
1,954 students or 1 for each 752 of population. California with 
five normal schools had an attendance of 1,604 students or 1 for 
each 975 of population. Wisconsin with nine schools, 2,514 stu- 
dents or 1 for each 857 of population. Just why Iowa and Kansas 
should succeed where other states have failed is not clear, Kansas 
at one time paid the traveling expenses of students beyond a 
radius of one hundred miles from a normal school. Iowa al- 
though almost equally successful had no such provision. It is 
worthy of note, however, that while Iowa and Kansas have an 
unusally heavy percentage of normal students, they have a 
relatively small percentage of normally trained teachers : Iowa 
12^4 per cent and Kansas 10 per cent, which must mean that 
either their graduates enter other professions largely or migrate; 
probably the latter. 

The point most frequently made in support of the small local 
normal school is found in the statement that their training or 
practice school facilities are more likely to be adequate than those 
of a large school. The training school is to the normal what a 
laboratory is to a man of science ; it is the place where observa- 
tion and experience, the future teacher learns her art. Without a 



12 University of Oregon Bulletin 

practice school for this essential work, a normal school is but 
little better than a specialized high school. Most state normal 
schools are located in but moderately sized towns, and there is 
always the danger that the number of normal students will in- 
crease more rapidly than the available supply of children for 
the training department ; the larger the school, the greater the 
danger. Says the principal of the Chico, California, normal school, 
"The great feature in the preparation of teachers is their practice 
teaching which cannot be effective in large schools." The prin- 
cipal of another California normal (San Diego) writes: "If the 
normal school is too large there is difficulty in securing ample 
training school facilities." These happen to be the first two state- 
ments of opinion on the list but twelve other witnesses testify to 
the same effect. 

There is also a general consensus of opinion that, after 
a certain number is reached, there is a sure loss of institutional 
efficiency. The personal influence of the president and leading- 
professors becomes less evenly diffused, their place is taken by 
cheap assistants. The student societies become large and un- 
wieldy and therefore inefficient; the building up of a school spirit 
which reaches the lives and ideals of the students, is increaseingly 
difficult. The idea is well expressed by the president of the 
Madison, South Dakota normal. "The great school has a mass of 
students and educates, trains and graduates in mass. The school 
of from 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 each year knows, 
educates and trains every individual and is sure of its work; 
it developes character and power." Another statement to the 
same effect comes from the principal of the Whitewater normal 
school, Wisconsin. "A large central school is too much of a 
machine. Pupils have too little contact with the administration 
and stronger members of the faculty. Too much of the instruc- 
tion in such cases is done by subordinate and comparitivelv cheap 
instructors. The school cannot accomplish any such work in 
the way of character building and personal moulding of students 
as is done in smaller schools." 

There is no agreement as to the exact point at which a nor- 
mal school becomes unwieldy. One correspondent puts it as low 
as 300 and another as high as 1,000. The weight of opinio-.! would 



University of Oregon Bulletin 13 

place the line neared the lower than the higher figure, perhaps at 
about 500. 

A normal school, by the outside work of its professors and 
through the influence of its students should act as a general 
stimulus to the schools of the communities adjacent to it. Amer- 
can normal schools as a rule do not undertake to advise and direct 
their graduates as in France and Germany, but in the main they 
should be expected to exert a steady and uplifting influence on the 
common schools nearest to them. Most American states are too 
extensive geographically and too populous to be reached in this 
way by a single school, no matter how efficient it may be. The 
entire population of Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New 
Jersey are in the immediate neighborhood of one school, but not 
so with New York and Pennsylvania and the great common- 
wealths of the west and south. As put by the state superintend- 
ent of Missouri, "Several schools, located in* different parts of 
our state will come more directly in contact with teachers and 
influence them more. The faculty of a normal school having 
about twenty counties in its district will in some measure super- 
vise the schools of that district, while one large central school 
will not reach the teachers of the outlying counties and will not 
exert the same influence on these counties as upon those nearer 
its location." 

Some other agruments are mentioned by the superintendents 
and principols, such as that a number of normal schools can se- 
cure appropriations easier than one and that competition is neces- 
sary to secure efficiency, which advantages either miss the mark 
or are purely incidental in their nature. The case for a system of 
small normal schools rests on the ground that in large and popu- 
lous states such a system trains more teachers, provides more 
adequate practice school facilities, moulds the lives of the stu- 
dents to a greater extent and exerts a stronger beneficial influence 
on the school system than could one large central school. 

On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt that a central 
school could train the same number of students more cheaply. 
Many of the advocates of a system of small schools admit this 
fact. For instance the state superintendent of Minnesota writes: 
"From the standpoint of economy to the state, I think it pre- 



14 University of Oregon Bulletin 

ferable to maintain only one large central school. From the 
standpoint of those in attendance, however, I think it better 
economy to have several located in different sections of the state." 
Such a quotation could be multiplied. States with only one school 
or which perhaps, have very recently added one or two weak in- 
stitutions with small appropriations and few students, so that for 
practical purposes there is only one school show a comparative- 
ly large gain in economy. The following brief statistical sum 
mary between two typical groups tells the tale. 

Group of states having in 1902-03 practically one school : 

Cost of Normal School Cost per Year of 
per 1000 Persons. Each Student. 

Iowa $60 $63 

Kansas 48 36 

Nebraska 31 62 

Indiana 28 52 

Group of states having a system of small local schools : 

Cost of Normal School Cost Per Year of 
per 1000 Persons. Each Student. 

Wisconsin $164 $140 

New York 80 106 

Massachusetts 89 150 

California 121 1 18 

When a central school fails to attract large attendance, it 
then is usually more expensive proportionally than a system of 
local schools. Colorado is a case in point where the cost of train- 
ing a student for a year reaches the high figure of $248 per 
year, a rate higher than that of some of the most efficient 
universities which have a much omre extensive plant. 

Another advantage in concentrating all the state's effort in 
one school is found in the correspondingly superior equipment 
and plant which such a concentration lenders possible. The 
gain is represented by better gymnasium and museums, excellent 
manual training and kindergarten departments, more advanced 
and specialized courses of instruction. The principals of the large 
schools take particular pains to emphasize this point. The fol- 
lowing quotation from a letter written by the principal of the 
Iowa school at Cedar Rapids represents others: "There are many 



University of Oregon Bulletin 15 

reasons why a good strong normal school is to be preferred to 
several weak ones, among which the privilege of having gradu- 
ating classes at the end of every term, to place upon the schedule 
of recitations each term, the varieties and divisions of class work 
and to have many specialties such as music and art, as well as to 
maintain a superior lecture course that a small school could 
never afford. We are able to have the Theodore Thomas Or- 
chestra come to this school to give three concerts costing $2,300. 
Such a transaction could not occur were the school small." 

It is quite possible to over emphasize the importance of this 
advantage. There is a limit to the amount of equipment neces- 
sary for a normal school. In spite of the testimony of two 
or three correspondents to the contrary, there is no reason why 
a normal school should have the equipment of a good university. 
The normal school has a single definite aim, the training of ele- 
mentary teachers, while a university aims to train men for a half 
dozen professions, all requiring more specialized work than 
preparation for elementary teachers and also attempts to encour- 
age original research at the same time. The implication of the 
writer quoted in the previous paragraph, that a number of normal 
schools means necessarily weak schools is refuted by the systems 
of Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Illinois and California, where the 
schools are on an efficient basis. Up to a certain point the argu- 
ment for a central school on the ground of better equipment has 
great weight, but after that point is reached, the addition of fur- 
ther equipment adds comparitively little to the real efficiency 
of the school. 

Another argument for a central school is that it has much 
greater prestige. The greater number of normal schools, the less 
the esteem in which they are held. As one writer expresss it : 
"The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity a normal school 
should possess." A still further objection to a system of small 
schools is the fact that these schools by competing among them- 
selves lower the standard of admission and scholarship and bring 
normal school education into bad repute. This difficulty is easily 
remedied by putting all the normal schools under one strong cen- 
tral board which by uniform standards will prevent rivalry and its 
attendant ills. 



16 University of Oregon Bulletin 

To strike a balance between the merits of the two systems 
which will be equally applicable to all states is obviously imprac- 
ticable in states where a central normal school is readily ac- 
cessible to the entire population and its influence as easily dif- 
fused the balance readily inclines to a single strong school. In 
commonwealths having vast populations like New York and 
Pennsylvania or of almost continental proportions like California 
or Texas, the establishment of a number of central schools be- 
comes a necessity. In case of states of considerable extent, but as 
yet possessing little wealth and contain a small po >vlation, yet 
growing rapidly, states like Oregon, Washington and Idaho, 
the problem becomes more intricate. 

1 he first requisite is, in all cases, efficency. What is the smallest 
apt ropriation which will support a first-class school of from 150 
to 250 students? This question was included in the circular letter 
sent to the principals and superintendents above mentioned. The 
replies varied from $15,000 a year at one limit :;o Siooooo at the 
other, the great majority, however, placed their estimates between 
$25,000 and $40,000. When we compare these figures with the 
actual expense in some of the most successful normal school 
states such as Wisconsin $39,000; Massachusetts, $33,000; New 
York and California $38,000, we can safely conclude that under 
ordinary conditions no normal school can bo put on an efficient 
basis for less than 25,000 for current expenses. 

The salary schedules which many principals kindly en- lesed 
in their replies to the circular letter form an interesting study. 
From them, we learn that in the states possessing the most 
efficient normal schools, the principal receives $3,000 a yea«*, men 
professors of experience from $1,400 to $2,200 per year; women 
professors in the normal school proper from $1,000 to $i\6oo, 
women teachers in the training department $750 to $1,000. These 
salaries may seen excessive to some, yet the fact that states as 
far apart as Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
Minnesota, Kansas and California all pay at this rate, furnishes 
strong presumptive evidence that such salaries are necessary to 
secure first-rate talent and that lower salaries (than these) mean 
less efficient service. 

An easy method of economizing sometimes adopted is to 



University of Oregon Bulletin 17 

eliminate the men with the exception of the principal. This at 
first glance does not seem to touch the standard of efficiency as 
$1,200 will secure a strong woman professor, while at least $1,600 
or $1,800 is necessary to secure a man of equal ability. In the 
end this policy destroys the balance and vitality of the school and 
impairs its administrative effectiveness. 

At the schedule quoted above, the following budget would 
meet the needs of a school of not to exceed 300 students. 

President $5,0000 

Four men at $1750 7,000 

Four women at 1,200 4,800 

Two women at 1,000 2,000 

Four critic teachers at 800 3,200 

20,000 
Janitor, supplies, library 5,000 



$25,000 
In regard to the organization of the governing machinery in 
a system of local schools there is a great variety of opinion Most 
of the educators favor the plan which happened to be in vogue 
ni their own states. The argument for separate local boards rests 
on the assumption that conditions are likely to be quite different 
in different sections of a state ; one section may be old and 
wealthy, another portion poor and undeveloped. A standard 
suitable to a normal school in the first might strangle a struggling 
institution on the frontier. Central boards tend to rigid uniform- 
ity in standards and rules, a number of local boards favors flex- 
ibility. Thus the principal of the De Kalk normal school, Illinois, 
replies "Separate boards if the localities vary greatly in condi- 
tions." In a local board, however, there is always a strong danger 
of a subordination of state interests to the financial interest of the 
particular localities. A local board frequently wants a large num- 
ber of students at any cost and as large an expenditure of money 
as possible in improvements. A local board is often favorable soil 
for germination of faculty, neighborhood and sectarian quarrels, 
a steady policy is a difficult matter for the president to attain, 
hampered as he is likely to be by numerous local interests. The 



18 University of Oregon Bulletin 

principal of the Mankota normal school, Minnesota represents 
this opinion when he writes : "We decided prefer our system of 
one central board as giving large freedom to the president and 
freedom from local interference." The principal of the New York 
City normal school speaks more sharply: "By a central board, 
local boards are chiefly interested in local graft." Some corre- 
spondents favor a compromise scheme by which the apopintment 
of teachers and business management is left in local hands while 
all matters are regulated to course of study,, certification and stan- 
dard of admission are regulated by a central committee, consist- 
ing of certain members of the different local committees. 

While a successful management of normal schools is possible 
under a number of different local boards the mass of argument 
and testimony inclines to the other side, the most successful nor- 
mal school states have either one central board of the compromise 
plan in which a central board controls scholastic conditions. The 
state as a state should have a normal school policy consistently 
carried out, not a number of different policies to suit the business 
interests of various towns. As local condition need some atten- 
tion, a local member from each normal school town on the central 
board secures this nesessary safeguard. 

A point of interest which was raised by several correspond- 
ents was the economy of the state paying the railway fare of stu- 
dents at a great distance from central school instead of founding 
local schools. In order to elicit all inforamtion possible on this 
interesting problem, a letter was sent to a large group of states, 
Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan and In- 
diana, asking for information on this point. No state but Kansas 
has apparently ever tried this scheme, and from Kansas, no reply 
could be obtained although from private sources it is known that 
at one time, this plan worked well there. 



INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO STATISTICAL TABLE. 

These statistcs are taken from the reports of the United 
States commissioner of education for 1902-^. The estimated pop- 
ulation by states is found in vol- 1 p lxxvii. The number of schools 
is found in table 1, vol. 11, p 1756; the number of student^ in 
table 2, vol. 2. p. 1757, this number includes only the statement in 
normal courses, about 5,000 students in business and other courses 
are excluded. The amount of income by states is given in table 5, 
p. 1760, vol. 2. The other items in the following table, viz: Aver- 
age income per school, cost of normal schools per 1000 inhabi- 
tants, cost of educating each normal student and the ratio of nor- 
mal students to entire population are not given in the commis- 
sioner's report but have been compiled from the other items by 
the present writer. 

The total income represents all possible resources for current 
expenses, not merely the legislative appropriations. Thus the 
total income of the Oregon normals was $56,458, while the legisla- 
ture appropriation was $40,350; the difference represents tuition 
fees and miscellaneous sources of income. In some states, a few 
schools failed to report income : the number actually reporting is 
put in brackets to the right of the total income. The financial 
statistics are therefore incomplete but not to such an extent as to 
destroy their usefulness. When they are incomplete the figures 
as to the cost of normal education per 1,000 of population and cost 
of training each normal student are only approximately correct. 
This is true of New York and Pennsylvania, but not of Illinois, 
Michigan, Wisconsin or California. ~— 

The institutions included in this list are the public normal 
schools of the United States and consist of municipal as well as 
state normal schools. In only a few states do municipal normal 
schools exist. 



20 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools 



Alabama 
1. Florence N. S 
414 Students. 



One is best until system is well established, two 
or more are prone to work against each other. 



2. Jacksonville 

N. S. 



No; the closer you put a school to the people the 
more of them you reach. 



Arizona 
3 State Super. 



i. Flagstaff N. S 



No, in large states and territories where distances 
are so great. 



No, just a reasonable number well distributed will 
reach a much larger student body and thus reach 
the home life of many more. Do not centralize. 



,. Tempe N. S. 



California. 
6. State Super. 



Depends upon conditions. If the central normal 
school is so located as to be able to secure unlimited 
training school facilities, then one large school is 
preferable, because better faculty and equipment can 
be procured at same cost. 



One large school would make more expense to 
the people in sending their students so far than it 
takes to run four or five schools. 



Chico, N. S. One large central normal school is not prefer- 

able to several smaller schools, the great feature 
| in the preparation of teachers is their practice train- 
ling, which cannot be effective in large schools. 



University ot Oregon Bulletin 



21 



Central vs. Local | 
Boards. 



By separate state 
boards with Supt 
of P. Instruction 
on each board. 
A combination of 
local and state 
board. 

By a separate 
board for each 
school as condi- 
tions may vary 
in different lo- 
calities. 



Appropriation 
sufficient for| 
Small Normal 
S chool. 
$25,000 



(Per Cent of Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 



j Rapidly increas- 
I ing. 



Salary Schedule 



$15,000 to $20,000 



Rapidly increas- 
ing. 



iPresident $2,250 

2 profs 1,500 

2 profs. 1,000 

4 profs 900 



This is a hard|60 per cent large 
question but l|ly increasing, 
would say $25,000] 
per year. 



President 
Heads of 

depts. 
| Assistants 

to 



Let the Supt. of: From $25,000 toj 45 per cent. Yes, President 
public instructionj$30,000. very noticeably. (Lowest 



Joint board from 20,000 is suffl-|38 per cent. 

all the schoolslcient if only high[ 

should govern| school graduates! 

course study, lo-|are admitted as| 

cal boards em-|in case of San| 

ploy teachers and] Francisco. 

attend to local 

matter. 



$2,250 

1,250 
500 
600 



$2,250 
1,100 



be the chairman 








of each local 




P 




board, not more 








than five in num- 








ber. 





Separate local|$40,000 for run- 60 per cent in-|Principal ..$2,250 

boards acting un-|ning expenses in-|creasing 

der the same] eluding repairs, (rapidly in 

general laws re- [years. 

lating to normal] 

schools. 



y 


lprof. 


1,750 


2 


1 prof. 


1,650 




3 profs. 


1,300 




5 profs. 


1,250 




3 profs. 


850 




1 prof. 


750 



I prefer i'dea of a 
central board 

with respect to 
standards of ad- 
mission minimun 
requirements of 
course of study 
graduation and| 
the like but I pre-| 
fer considerable 
local autonomy in 
order to give prin- 
cipal and faculty 
freedom as re- 
gards details and 
an 3 adaptation to 
locality. 



From $30,000 to 
$40,000 for run- 
ning expenses. 



Refer to state 

superintendent's 

report. 



President 


$3,400 


2 profs. 


1,800 


2 profs. 


1,700 


2 profs. 


1,500 


1 prof. 


1,400 


2 profs. 


1,300 


5 profs. 


1,200 


5 profs. 


1,000 


1 prof. 


900 



22 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



|Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
| of Smaller Schools? 



Los Angeles One I think has greater strength; has less diver- 

sion of sentiment, can better meet university opposi- 
| tion which is shown by the statp universities. 



9. San Diego N.| Central vs. Local Schools. 

S. No each normal school has an influtnce on educa- 

tion in surrounding country. If the school is too 
large there is difficulty in securing ample training 
school facilities. Students in small schools arc better 
known by faculty. 



10. San Francisco] 



It is not; normal education, is a local matter. 



11. San Jose N. S.| I think it better if attendance in any normal 

(school could be kept under 300. Faculty get personally 
acquainted with all etc. 



Colorado. 
12. Greeley N. S. 



Central school is preferable until the state is well 
developed and has plenty of money to keep fully 
equip others. 



Connecticut. 
13. State Super. 



In a small state like Connecticut a single normal 
school is preferable, if model schools and practice fa- 
cilities can be secured, the question was before the 
state board of education several years ago and we 
advised the legislators to enlarge the single school 
then in existence. The legislature did not follow our 
|advice but established another school and now we 
|have four. Reasons for consolidation are economy of 
| expense and unity of organization and purpose. 

14. New Britain | No. Smaller schools if well supported can look 
N. S. after the training of the pupils; bettor success of a 

[noimal school depends on schools for practive. 

15. Willamette N. 



S. 



It is my belief that a number of schools of a 
moderate size are preferable to one large school be- 
cause of the difficulties involved in providing training 
facilities for large classes of normal students. 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



23 



Boards. 


Appropriation 


Per Cent of Nor- 


Salary Schedule 


Central vs. Local 


sufficient for mal trained 
Small Normal | Teachers. 






Combination. 


$26,000 for run-|38 per cent, 
ning expenses. 

1 






Central vs. Local 


Appropriation. |Per Cent of Nor- 


President 


$3,400 


board. 


$33,000. mally Trained 


3 profs. 


1,800 


Not prepared to 


Teachers. 


1 prof. 


1,700 


say. 


133 1-3 in 1903 to 


4 profs. 


1,600 




1 38 in 1904. |2 profs. 


1,500 




[1 prof. 


1,400 




I fl prof. 


1,200 


r |1 prof. 


1,000 


| |3 profs. 


900 


This depends!$25,000 to $30,000|46 per cent. Is in-|President 


$3,400 


wholly on the|for current ex-icreasmg rapidly. 


2 profs. 


2,000 


board. Ipenses. \ 


2 profs. 


1,800 






1 prof. 


1,620 


1 




2 profs. 


1,500 


1 




1 prof. 


840 






2 prof 


780 


1 fl prof. 


720 


Combination; lo-|$30,000 to $35,000.|30 per cent; in- 


President 


$3,400 


cal too much in-| 


creasing. 


1 prof. 


. 2,200 


fluenced by local 






2 profs. 


1,800 


conditions. 






1 prof. 
4 profs. 
7 profs. 

3 profs. 

4 profs. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 


1,700 
1,600 
1,500 
1,300 
1,200 
1,100 
900 


Should on e board|$25,000 to $30,000 


Large and in- 






with a local 


creasing. 






member where! 








school is locatedl 








to work with. 







Schools should be| $30,000 is not tool 1,550 teachers out| 



controlled by a 
single board and 
perhaps by a 
single person. 



Central Board. 



Control by cen- 
tral board satis- 
factory. 



large for a school|of 4,300. 
of 250 students|cent. 
with a good| 

plant.! 



per| 



$25,000 



33 1-3, is increas-| 
ling. I 



[Less than 50 perl 
cent. 



24 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



Idaho. 
16. Albion N. 



S. 



"There should be two or more in a state if state 
is too large for one school tc get in close touch with 
all parts of the state." 



17. Lewiston N 
S. 



"One school is preferable up to an attendance 
limit of about 400. If the attendance runs higher than 
about that number, it is practically impossible to get 
good results for teachers in the training school as 
there are too limited opportunities for teaching. To 
the state it is made more economical to have one 
large school. (Remarks on transportation accompany 
this.) 



Illinois "No. Because of the advantages of local patronage 

18. Carbondale N.| which is always a factor of more or less importance, 



S. 



is increased by having more than one institution. The 
local interest is helpful. As a rule the larger number 
of sections interested, the easier to secure appropria- 
tions from the legislature. 



19. Charleston, N.[ No. The area most adjacent to a normal school is 
most effective. Hence there is a greater stimulus 
from a number of schools." 



20. DeKalb N. S.| 



"No. Too big." 



21 Normal, 111. "Several small ones will secure more careful 

I training. The large schools give excellent instruction 
|and are full of enthusiasm." 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



25 



Central vs local 


Appropriation 


Per cent of Nor- 


| Salary S 


;hedule. 


Boards. 


sufficient for 
Small Normal 


mal Trained 
Teachers. 






"By separate 


$30,000 to $40,000 


20 per cent, in- 


President 


$2,250 


boards." 


for biennial pe- 


creasing-. 


2 profs. 


1,20# 




riod for mainte- 




2 profs. 


1,100' 




nance alone. 




1 prof. 


1,000 




1 


2 profs 


900 






1 profs 


750 




1 


1 prof. 


500 



This is a difficult|$25,000 a year for 

question to an-lmaintenance. 

swer sati'sf actor- 1 

ily. Wisconsin 

does well withj 

one board. In| 

other states itj 

has hampered) 

the work and put 

the school into 

politics. It goes 

back to a consid-| 

eration of the| 

personnel of the; 

board. 



Increasing. 



President 
[4 profs. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 



2,400 

1,350- 

1,500 s 

1,150 

1,100> 

1,000 

950 

780 

600 



There are ad-! About $40,000. 
vantages in each] 
method. In Illin- 
ois there is a| 
separate board! 
for each school! 
and it works well.j 



10 percent, in- (President 
creasing slowly. 



1 prof. 
5 profs. 

1 prof. 

2 profs. 
2 profs. 

2 profs. 

3 profs. 
1 prof. 



$3,700 
2,350 
2,000 
1.900 
1,500 
1,300 
1,200 
1,100 
900 



I do not know. I| 
have had eleven! 
years experience! 
under our central! 
board and six un-| 
der separate! 
boards. Each planj 
has its advant-| 
ages. I 



$35,000 



From $2,250 down 
to $805. 



That depends |10 per cent, in- 
!$40,000 to $60,000.|creasing slowly. 



Profs. $1,500 
$2,000. 



to 



I beli'eve a single) 
board is best al-| 
tho I know noth-i 
ing personally of 
its workings. 



$45,000. Graduates not 

I more than 5 per 
I cent, possibly 20 
I per cent have at- 
tended 3 months. 



26 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



Indiana. 
22. State Supt. 



"I would say that one large normal school is 
preferable to a number of smaller normal schools. 
I think we need one large normal school in order to 
train teachers for teaching in district and town 
schools of state, so long as the school is sufficient to 
do the work. When other normal schools are neces- 
sary I think they should be smaller and a part of 
the normal school system of which the large normal 
school, first named, is the head. There should be a 
sufficient number of these smaller normal schools lo- 
cated in such a way as to meet the needs of teachers 
in the various localities. I should say that these 
smaller schools should give about a two y ars' course, 
one to the study of common branches ai J the other 
to professional work. The admission shoul I be limited 
to high school graduates or to persons of known 
ability. Full credit should be given for two years 
work in these smaller schools in the large central 
school." 



Iowa. "We have but one normal school in this state. 

23. State Supt. There is an advantage in having one great library, 
(one strong department of domestic economy, physical 
[training, kindergarten, etc., etc., and the strength in 
|many ways that comes from numbers. The expense 
(travel from remote parts of the state to the one school 
is considerable and no doubt prevents many attending 
who would be enrolled in a school nearer at hand, that 
is the aggregate attendance in a number of schools 
would doubtless be much greater than attendance in 
one school, however strong." 



24. Cedar Falls 

N. S. 



"Do not know which is preferable. Iowa at 
present, has only one and proposes to make it a 
valuable institution by fine plant, a superior equip- 
ment and variable courses. It is not considered in- 
ferior to the agricultural college or the state univer- 
sity, but is essentially different in all respects. Its 
limitation is the preparation of teachers for the public 
| schools." 



25. Woodbine N. 
S. 



"A number of small ones. Accommodate more 
pupils and keep in better touch with common schools." 



Kansas. 
26. Emporia N. S. 



"Yes. The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity 
a normal school should possess. There is no more 
reason for multiplying normal schools than for multi- 
plying state universities or state agricultural colleges." 
Central school is establishing branches. 



University of. Oregon Bulletin 



27 



Central vs. local | 
Boards. 

I 



Apropriation |Per cent of Nor-|Salary Schedule, 
sufficient for | mal Trained | 
small Normal I Teachers. 



If the state sup-|$20,000 to $25,000|Abcut 20 per cent 
ports a number! would be suffi-lhave had normal 
of normal schools) cient amount to| training, a larger 
as above. they | put a small nor- 1 per cent have had 



should be con-mal school on an 
trolled by one efficient basis 
central board 



some 
trainin 



n o r m a 1| 



One board would 
be preferable. 



Appropriation in! Many in town, 
Iowa is $130,000|few in country, 
for 2,000 students.] 



"Do not know| "$25,000, $35,000! Increasing in] Printed report. 

Illinois prefers! according to var-| better paying! 

separation, Wis-|iety of work at-|positions, no cen-j 

consin union,!/tempted. General sus taken. 

both are satisfied! courses might be| 

and equally sue- 1 maintained ; on 

cessful." .|*15,000 a year.l 

I the school wouldl 

I only be fair as to| 

I opportunity un-| 
der the latter." 



"One Central!$25,000 as mostllO to 15 per cent.|$500 to $1,400 for 
board to preventlstate schools ardProbably, yes. leach teacher, 
rivalry." I managed $10,,000! 

I should do it. 
By one board. 



I Annual income! Probably 10 per|Important full 

($30,000 to $50,000.! cent Normally! professors $1,890 
Itrained teachers|e x c 1 u s i v e or 
I stay longer in| summer session. 



I profession, 
I creasing. 



in 



Assoc. $1,450 a 
year, exclusive of 
summer school. 
I Some exceptions 
full salary roll en- 
dorsed. 



2$ 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



lis One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



"Louisiana. "Yes, one school can be better equipped and made 

27. State Super, more efficient unless the state is rich and Willing to 
I spend money for normal school work." 



Maine. 

28. State Super. 



Several. 



29. Gorham N. S. "Three hundred students is enough for a school 

land that number only in a city which can give 3,000 
I children in practice schools. Less than that if you 
| have not enough pupils in lower grades for practice 
I school s." 
Massachusetts.! Your first question must be answered by each 

30. State Super, state for itself in accordance with its own local con- 

ations. Rhode Island finds one central school sufficient 
I for its purposes. Massachusetts has nine and finds 
j them none too many to provide the teachers whom 
lit needs." 



31. Fitchburg N. 

S. 



32. Framingham 

N. S. 



"No. Several being easier of aecess craw pupils 
who can attend only by living at home." 



"This state has nhip schools, all comnaratively 
small. We evidently tend to small schools. " 



33. Hyannis N. S 



"No. In smaller schools there is bettei oppor- 
tunity for individual instruction and practice work." 



Massachusetts 
34. Salem. 



"No. The smaller normal schools are preferable, 
because of the greater ease of thorouerh acquaintance 
of student by teacher, and of providing a proper sup- 
ply of model and practice schools." 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



29 



Central vs. Local! Appropriation |Per Cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule 
Boards. sufficient for mal trained 
Small Normal I Te ache rs. 

(Almost the samelOne-third slowly 
as for large I increasing, 
school salaries! 
alone, $30,000. 



One board. 



One board. 



$15,000. 



33 per cent, in- 
creasing at rate 
I of 10 per cent a 
I year. 
($20,000 a year for|Increasing, 
I running ex- 1 very slowly 

Ipenses. 



but 



"I should say| Gives facts for 
that it is better! Massachusetts, 
that all the nor-JBridgewater, 
mal schools of! $45,781|a year, 

the state be un-| Salem 29,886) 

der the control of|Fitchburg 30,000| 
one central board jrange from S 22, - 1 
some members of 1 000 to $45,000. 
which should be| 
assigned as a| 
special commit-] 
tee for each| 
school." |i 



46.8 per cent, 
grows at rat of 
about 2 per cent 



Central Board. | $30,000 a year. | Increasing. 

I I 

I 



Principal $3,000 
Male teachers 

$2,200, $2,000 
Female, 

$1,600. $1,000 



Both. 



$35,000 a year. | Don't know, 
I 



Principal 


$3,000 


1 prof. 


1,750 


1 prof. 


1,400 


1 prof. 


1,200 


5 profs. 


1,000 


2 profs. 


800 


1 prof. 


750 


1 prof. 


650 


1 prof. 


600 



Combination 
the two. 



off $30,000 a year. 



Probably a com-| 

bination of two| 

methods would] 

work work best 

in practice. 



State apropria-|About 50 per 
tion $30,975-$4,-|cent, increasing. 
750 paid by city| 
for model teach- j 
ers, $35,500. 

I 



Men who work 
full time ar e paid 
$2,300; women 

from $800 to $1,- 
200, $1,000 being 
the average. 



30 



University cf Oregon Bulletin 



|Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



35. Worcester 



"I should say c.ecidedly not." 



Michigan. "Our experience shows that it is preferable to 

36. State Supt. jhave several normal schools in the state rather than 
j one large central school. Our experience also shows 
| that the practice teaching or the work of the training 
| school department is one of the most important fea- 
tures and that if your school is so large as to reduce 
I the amount of possible practice teaching, you have 
! decreased the efficiency of the institution. Our state 
| normal college enrolls about a thousand students and 
I that is all it ought to accommodate. We have three 
'other normal schools, one in the peninsula, one in the 
I southwest part of the state and another in the north 
I central part." 

County normal training classes in rural districts. 
I 



37. Ypsilanti N.| "One central with others more elementary in 

S. [character acting as feeders for the central one seems 

Ito be the best system." 



Minnesota. 
38. State Supt. 



39. Duluth 

S. 



_J 

"From the standpoint of economy to the state, 
1 1 think it preferable to maintain only one large cen- 
ftral school. From the standpoint of those who are 
I in attendance, however, I think it better economy to 

I have several located in different sections of the state. 

I I think also from the point of good administration and 
I best results in work, the smaller school is to be pre- 
jferred." 

N.| "I think not for the reason that the smaller 

student body and faculty can c'o more satisfactory 
I work and because variation in ooints of view is likely 
| to f'irni-sh a stimulus not otherwise obtainable." 



40. Mankato S. N.[ "We prefer the smaller schools on acco^-.it of the 

S. I closer touch possible between student and teacher, 

land the better opportunity for practice teaching." 



41. Moorehead S. 

N. S. 



"We have five normal schools in Minnesota. 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



3* 



Central vs. Local) 
Boards. 



Appropriation 
sufficient for 
Small Normal 



|Per cent of Nor- 
| mally Trained 
Teachers. 



Salary Schedule", 



A combination. |Not far 
{$30,000. 



from 



"All our normal! 
schools are under 
the control of one| 
state board ofj 
education which) 
is by far prefer- 
able to having - a 
each institution 
board to control 
separately be- 
cause you then 
secure uniform-!' 
ity, harmony and| 
economy in ad-| 
ministration." | 

One board inlDo not know, 
control over all is| 
decidedly the 1 

best plan. 



The annual ap- 
propriation for 
our northern 

peninsula school 
which enrollsj 

about 200 stu-| 
dents is for each 
of the ensuing 
two years $44,- 
000; for the 

western normal 
school its $39,000. 



50 per cent grad-| 
ed schools, in- 
creasing each 
year. 



Increasing rapid -| President $5,500 


'ly. ! Heads of depart- 


ments 2,500 


lAssistant profs. 


2,000 


1 Instructors 900 


to 1,400 




Assistants 500 




to 800 



"1 think the one| 
central board is| 
decidedly to be| 
preferred as it! 
gives unity and| 
economy of ad-'| 
ministration. 



After necessary 1 25 per cent of 
building and per- [normal graduates 
manent equip-ja still further 
ment $25,000 an-jnumber have a 
nuaJly. jpartial normal 

Straining. 



By a central 
board with a lo- 
cal member. 



For maintenance|On the increase, 
[not less thanf 
$35,000 to 40,000.| 



$3,000 to $8,00.1 



We decidedlyfi 

prefer our system 
of one central 
board as giving 
large freedom to 
the president and 
freedom from lo-| 
ral interference, j 
We have one! 
board and system! 
is satisfactory. 



$30,000 to $35,000.1 Increasing, Nor-|Men teachers $1,- 
|mal schools can- 400 to $1,800; 
|not meet the de-jwomen $800 to 
Imands. |$1,200 

j ' 

$25,000 to $30,000.!Per cent i s large,|Averag e of $1,800 
igreat demand for|for men and $1,- 
Igraduates. 200 for women, 

fentire list given. 



3* 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



Is One Large Central School Preferablp to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



42. St. Cloud S. 

N. S. 



43. Winona S. N. 

S. 



"I do not believe in one large central school. First, 
schools should be near people; second, schools have 
more political prestige if different parts of the state 
are represented; third, for practice purposes schools 
should not be too large." 



"We have five schools in this state and I think 
the attendance is larger and the work accomplished 
better than in one central school. Students who at- 
tend a normal school are not inclined to travel the 
longer distance necessary in reaching a central 
school." 



Missouri. 
44. State Supt. 



Missouri believes in several normal schools rather 
than one large central school. Our legislature has 
recently voted to establish two new normai schools 
in addition to the three already in existence. Several 
schools located in different parts of the state will 
come directly in contact with teachers and influence 
them more. The faculty of a normal school having 
about 20 counties in its district will in some measure 
supervise the schools of that district, while one large 
central school will not reach the teachers of the out- 
lying counties and will not exert the same influence 
on these counties as upon those nearer its location. 
One large school will assume to itself the function of 
preparing teachers for the city schools and high 
schools and not adjust itself to the rural and village 
school conditions as readily and positively. 



Montana. 



Yes. It is too hard to get sufficient funis to main- 
tain several. 



45. Dillon N. S. 



"In reply to No. 1., it seems to me that the burden 
of proof rests with those who would have more than 
one normal school. Why have several any more than 
several universities or several agricultural colleges? 
It is desirable to have the facilities within easy reach 
but suppose you try to locate institutions in Oregon 
so that one would be more than a hundied miles from 
a normal school It would cost the state less to pay 
the railroad fare of all the students who would be 
| more than one hundred miles from a central normal 
j school than it would to maintain the additional 
schools. Besides this a is very much more efficient 
|fac ulty could be maintained because of th e possibility 
|of more thoroughly organized systematizing the work. 
I Where a state has already made heavy investments 
in plants at various points, the practical problem is, 
jhowever, seriously modified." 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



33 



Central vs. Local! 
Boards. 

I 



Appropriation 
sufficient for 

Small Normal 

$28,000. 



There should be! 
one central boards 
thus to prevent! 
livalry, dissen-! 
sion, etc. One, 
Resident director 
to represent local] 
conditi'ons is al 

wise idea. | 

"I prefer the cen-j After plant 
tral board which, | established 
however extends! would 
some freeom to|$30,000 
separate schoolsjfcr running 
to meet local! penses. 
conditions." 



| Per cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule 
i mally Trained | 

| Teacher s^ | 

(About 33 perlPresident $3,000 
I cent is increas-j Director of train- 
ling. ' ! ing depart 2,000 
[Heads of departs 
| $1,000 to $1,600 
Assistants 900 
I to 810 

i ___J I 

isjGraduates 10 perPresident $3,000 

it|cent, Normal! Men 1,800 to 2,000 

require! teachers not| Women 600 

annuallylgraduates 10 perj to 1,650 

ex- 1 cent. 



Under separate! After school 
boards cur nor e q u i p p e d 



mal schools work 
very harmonous- 
ly and co-operate 
as far as courses 
of study and re- 
quirements for 
entrance and 
graduation are 
concerned, the 

state superin- 

tendent is a 
member of each I 
of the boards and! 
i s the harmoniz-| 
ing influence of! 
these boards. 



is|Is increasing, 15| 

it) per cent are nor-l 

an|mally trained, 30 

anual aopropria-|per cent come in 

tion of support of|contact with nor- 

about $25,000. Imal schools • 



should have 



IGraduates all go|Figure s in report 
|to graded schools, sent. 



They should have! It costs us $27,- 1 From 10 to 15 perj 
local board and! 000 annually. Icent. 

central governing! I 

board s. _J 

My answer to No.| 
2 must be purely| 
theoretical as I| 
have no experi-| 
ence to throw| 
light on that! 
point, I should! 
prefer, however) 
to try the central! 
board. 



34 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



lis One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



Nebraska. | "A number of small scnools preferable. Experience 

46. State Super, [of older states." 



47. Peru St. N. 



"We prefer having two in this state. 



New Jersey "I think the number of normal spools in any state 

48. Trenton N. S.jshould be decided by the clearly expressed conditions 
jof the state, territory, and as to population. Those 
I who are to take up the work of teaching, a-; a rule, 
have limited means, hence we find that railway dis- 
tances very much effects their attendance upon the 
normal schools. Any normal school will fin;' its 
largest percentage of attendance relatively speaking, 
from the nearby sections. 

"Secondly: Normal schools are educe tional insti- 
tutions of the higher order and as such follow the 
general principles of educational institutions. For 
instance, they must be large enough to be able to get 
strong faculties and a well planned department or- 
ganization, goo: 1 laboratories, libraries, etc., and a 
good institutional spirit something akin to that spirit 
reached in many of the colleges: If the normal 
schools are too small and too personal, they come 
I short in these features. I should say that a normal 
I school should enroll about four hundred students and 
Ithat after this enrollment is reached, it i's better to 
I establish other schools in different population centers 
j than to go on increasing the size of a school beyond 
| this point." 



New York "No. Because it 

49. Cortland N. S.|so many students." 



cannot conveniently accomodate 



50. Fredonia N. S.l "In a state as large as Oregon there should be 
more than one normal school to elict interest in dif- 
ferent parts of the state as well as for convenience." 



51. Amaica N. S. | "One central school of higher grade for secondary 
teachers; others for elementary teachers." 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



35 



Central vs. Local f Appropriation | 
Boards. sufficient for j 

Small Normal 



Per Cent of Nor-! 
mal trained | 
Teachers. 



Salary Schedule 



Controlled by one| $25,000 a year fori 
central board. |salaries. j 

By one board. 



See junior nor-| 
mal bulletin. 



$60,000 for sal- 
aries and mainte- 
nance. 



Is increasing Pres. 


$2,500 


rapidly. Can't to 


1,000 


give percentage.! 2 profs. 


1,400 


but low. to 


900 




2 profs. 


1,200 




2 profs. 


1,100 




Must receive 1,100 



I think the nor- $30,000 a suffi- 
mal schools of a cient annual ap- 
state should appropriation for a 
be under thejschool of 250 pu- 
same board of|pils. 
education, other- 1 
wise there are| 
bound to be leg- 
islative rivalries,! 
this board can! 
appoint as many 
committees on 

local schools as itj 
likes. 



33 1-3 per cent, is] 
increasing. 



A combination of| $35,000. 

two, the first will 

secure uniform-' 

ity, the second] 

will take care of! 

local interests. 



Separate boards|$15,000 to 

with central con 

trol. 



By a 

board. 



central 



(Principal 
15 men 
I to 

1 2 receive 
I Women 

to 

mostly 



25 per cent injPrincipal 
1899 it was 23 per|4 men 
cent. to 

J12 women 
to 




$3,300 
1,100 
2,200 
1,900 

650 
1,200 
1, 000 
"$3,300 
1,600 
2,000 

400 
1,300 



mostly oth- 
er 700 or 



800. 



About 65 per cent|Men $1,900 to $2,- 
|500. 

Women $800 to 
$1,400. 



36 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



52. New Paltz 



53. New York N 

S. 



Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



"No. Competition is as necessary in developing 
ideals in educational institutions of efficiency as in 

business." 



54. Oneonta N. S. 



"No. Several schools accessible to students in 
different parts of the state will be more largely at- 
tended and each will exert an uplifting influence in 
its own locality." 



I consider several smaller schools preferable, com- 
petition is a good thing, traveling expenses of 
Istudents lessstudents less. 

J 

55 - Plattsburg [ "No. Smaller schools are able to give better train- 
■^- S. jing in observation anc practice work and more indi- 

vidual attention. Of course equal faculties and 
(equipment are presupposed." 

sft N A7- rth - Dakota - "Yes. If independent of university or other con- 

5b. Valley City. |trol and is properly located. Its aim should be to 
turn out a number of highly trained teachers" 



Oklahoma. 
57. Stats Supt. 



"The prevailing sentiment among educators in the 
territory is that we should emphasize the schools for 
secondary education and decrease the number of 
normal schools to one (from three). At thr present 
our normal schools ar e doing about fourteen years' 
work. We feel that a great good could be done to a 
greater number if this change were made. 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



37 



Central vs. Local| 
Boards for Nor-| 
mal Schools. | 
Combination of] 
the two provide ij 
that the local 
boards have some 
real power vested 
in Lhem and not 
centralized pow- 
er, otherwise one 
central board as 
in Massachusetts 
is preferable. 

I 
By a central| 
board, local) 

board are chieflyj 
interested in lo-j 

cal graft. j 

Combination. 



Appropriation 


Per 


cent of Nor- 


Salary S< 


?hedule. 


sufficient for 


mally 


Trained 






Small Normal 





Teachers. 






Not less than 






Principal 


$3,000 


$40,000. 








1 house 

1 prof. 

2 profs. 
2 profs. 
2 profs. 
1 prof. 
1 prof. 


750 
1,700 
1,600 
1,400 
1,200 
1,000 

900 










Grade supervisors 










$800 to 


$1,000, 










critic 


teachers 










$550 to $650. 



25,000. 



Increasing-. 



|Principal 
|First ass't 

lAss't 
I to 



$40,000 annual; Increasing 25 

maintenance. 30 per cent. 



to|Principal 

| Men 
IWomen 



$5,000 
3,500 
1,900 
2,400 

$3,300 
2,000 
1,000 



On average. 



Would favor cen- $40,000 to $50,000.| 

tral board of con-j 

trol with perhaps! 

a local boara of | 

visitation. 



A combination of| $40,000 
two, one boardf 
tends to mechari-] 
ism and horizon-! 
tal rules. Schooll 
should be inde-j 
pendent enough! 
to eneoiirge in-! 
indispensible in-j 
itiative in man- 
agement. ! 

At the presentlFor 
time, the three! 
normal schools! 
are con-] 

trolled by one| 
central board of] 
regents. In some| 



iPrincipal 


$3,300 


1 4 men 


1,500 


to 


1.800 


IWomen 


500 


to 


800 


| mostly 


800 


'IPrincipal 


$2,800 


4 men 


1,200 


1 to 


1,600 


i9 men 


600 


to 


1,300 



150 students] 
$20,000. 



Is fair. 



mess 
board 



ways this is very 
satisfactory, in 
others very (Detri- 
mental. Our peo- 
ple serve without] them 
comp e n s a t i o nifrom 
practically andllar 
the length 
time required 



of the 

detains 
too long 
their regu- 
vocations.j 
of! Either system 

toiwill have its ad- 
transact the bus r !vantages. 



38 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number 
of Smaller Schools? 



Pennsylvania. 
58. State Supt. 



'I prefer several schools." 



South Carolina.| "Yes, for economy and efficiency's sake." 

59. State Supt. | 

South Dakota. | "It is not. The great school has a mass of stu- 

60. Madiscn N. S. dents and educates, trains and graduates in mass. 

I The school of 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 
leach year, knows, educates and trains every individ- 
[ al and is sure of all its work, develops character 
[and power. The state cannot be reached by one 
las by three or four. The work of all is needed badly." 



Texas. 
61. State 



Supt. 



"In Texas, several preferable because of the con- 
tinental proportions of the state." 



Vermont. 
62. State Supt. 



"No. Several schools located in different parts 
of the state will graduate many more teachers than 
one .school. In seeking to increase the per cent, of 
trained teachers numbers constitute an important 
element. One school would be of higher standard, 
bue 300 fairly trained etachers will do a state more 
good than 100 finely trained teachers." 



63. Johnson S. N. 



"We have three in this small state of Vermont 
but this is due more to historical than practical rea- 
sons I fancy. If the founding of a normal school 
came up as a new proposition I doubt if there would 
be more than one. Certainly not more than two, one 
for the eastern and one for the western side of the 
state." 



Virginia. "Smaller schools are preferable because of ac- 

L Petersburg S. cessibility and because more personal work can be 
done for the students." 

"In answer to your first question 1 will simply 
ask whieli you think preferable, a large university 
well supported or a small affair which has no stand- 
ling anywhere in the union? If the state supports 
eral normal schools will they rank as highly as 
(one well supported and well equipped normal school? 
I My opinion is they will not." 



Washington 
65. State Supt. 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



39 



-ntral vs. Local! Appropriation |Per cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule. 



Boards. 



sufficient for 
Small Normal 



mally Trained 
Teachers. 



I prefer 
board. 



central! $15,000 a year. 



central 



$100,000. 



One 

board. 

By one single|From $15,000 up 
board for all un-|to $20,000 be 
questionably, the|strictly normal 
other plan was|schools not col- 
tried in this state|leges or miscel- 
and was a fail-|laneous schools, 
ure. One boarc 1 ! 
for all state insti-| 
tutions is ourj 

practica l plan. j 

A combination of 
the two. 



Its increasing! 
percentages mis-j 
lead. | 



25 per cent rap-| 
idly increasing. 



Is increasing de- 
mand is for more 



Not 
plant, 



countin; 
$20,000. 



;\ No statistics, 

I number is rapid- 
ly increasing. 



By 



central! $15,000 minimum.! 24 pet of normal 



board with local! 
representation on 
the boar a. 



President 


$2,000 


3 men 


1,300 


to 


1,400 


8 women 


900 


to 


1,200 


mostly 


900 



The control is in! $22,500 would be 

a central board of enough for one, is 

which the staten o w divided 

supt. of education (among three. 

is a member plus! 

one resident] 

member in each| 

of the towns) 

where the nor-j 

mals are located.) 

It represents all' 

interests and| 

works well. 

Combination of| $20,000. 

local and state! 

board. 



I graduates 8 per 
I cent have attend 
led normal schools 
! 8 per cent are 
'college graduates 
| 60 per cent high 
I school graduatesj 
190 per cent havej 
lattended either) 
j college, normal orj 
] high school. | 

About 30 per cent 
Is increasing, de- 
mand greater 
than supply. 



Principal 

Ass'ts 
to 



$1,800 
500 
800 



Should be underlln Washington 
the control of one) from $74,000 to 
board of trustees! $55,000 including 
or regents for thejrepairs. 
reason that if 

you have a single! 

board you getjboard for each 
uniform results| normal school| 

while with a|you do not. I 



If increasing per- 
centage unknown. 



Statistics are in- 
accurate, so not 
given. 



4 o 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



T 

66. Bellingham N.| "In my opinion a normal school does its best 
S. | work when it does not have more than three or four 

[hundred students. The personal element is of much 
| importance in normal school work. I should think 
| that one normal school in eastern and one in western 
I Oregon would be sufficient for many years to come." 
I 
I 
West Virginia. I "A central school is less expensive on the whole 

67. State Supt. |and therefore more likely to be able to supply train - 

'ing of the highest grades. As schools are educators, 
| and therefore benefits the community, the more the 
better." 



Wisconsin 
68. Milwaukee 
S. 



X 



69. Oshkosh N. S 



"In regard to question No. 1, I have but one 
opinion, and that is that a number of smaller normal 
schools would be preferable to one large centrally lo- 
cated normal school. My native state is Michi- 
igan where for years they had one large 
normal school. Investigation showed that 

ninety per cent, of its attendance was drawn from 
adjacent counties. Remote parts of the state were 
not drawn upon. The factor of expense became an 
i important one. Moreover the remote parts of the 
state did feel the touch of the normal school, it was 
not big enough to make itself felt through the entire 
state. Within the last eight years three normal 
schools have been established in Michigan. The at- 
tendance at the central school has materially increased 
and the other three schools are f 'ill. Each one of the 
four schools draws largely from its own locality. 
Wisconsin is so thoroughly committed to the several 
school plan that the legislature now in session has 
authorized the establishment of an eighth school. 
Eight schools ministering to the eight sections of the 
state can do nearly eight times as nru-.i good for the 
educational interests of the sante as ca i one" 

"I think not. In a lame school all individuality 
is in danger of being lost. (Masses are much too large 
gener illy." 



70. Platteville 

S. 



_J 

N.| "We likp o'U' system of a number of small schools. 

|We have seven of them in Wisconsin. The smaller 
'schools give better opportunity for personal eontaci 



'with in [vidua! students." 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



4i 



Central vs. Local 
Boards. 



Appropriation 
sufficient for 
Small Normal 
$60,000 to erect 
and equip, $20,000 
to $22,000 annual- 
ly for support 



Never have two 
boards in charge 
of same school. In 
Washington we 
have separate 

• boards, but I 
rather favor one 
central board. 
By a centralEnclose list 
board by alljappropriations 
means. The sys- 
tem of a state 
should be har- 
monious and be- 
sides the multi- 
plication of the 
unnecessary ex- 
pense. 

I am thoroughly 
convinced that 
one board is bet-| 
ter than several 



I Per Cent of Nor- 
mal trained 
Teachers. 

Small. Is in- 
creasing, but not 
rapidly on ac- 
count of growth 

I of state. 

) 



Salary Schedule 



President 
Teachers 
to 



of 



$3,000 

800 

1,400 



Per cent is small 
but increasing 

very rapidly at 
'present. 



f 



$35,000 to $40,000. 



One central board 
for all. 



By a 

board. 



central 



Do not think 
is increasing. 



$35,000 to $40,000.|N. S 
'graded 



$35,000. 



supply 
schools 
but only about 10 
per cent of teach- 
lers in ungraded 
Ischools. 

lis increasing but 
(percentage is un- 
I known. 



President 


$3,200 


Men 


1,500 


to 


2,200 


Women 


825 


to 


1,200 


1 woman 


re- 


ceives 


1,800 



4 2 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



71. Whitewater N. | 
S. 



"We are thoroughly convinced in Wisconsin that 
one large normal school is not preferable to a number 
of smaller normal schools. Of course certain things 
can be accomplished in a large school more easily and 
effectively, just as in a large factory; but these are 
not the things which are most worth accomplishing. 
A number of schools distributed judiciously about the 
state will reach a large number of people who cannot 
be reached by one central school. Thus the schools 
of the state will be more generally served, in the way 
of providing teachers. Again a large central school 
is too much of a machine. Pupils have too little con- 
tact with the administration and the stronger mem- 
bers of the faculty. Too much of the instruction is 
done in such cases by subordinate and comparatively 
cheap instructors. The school cannot accomplish any 
such work in the way of character building and per- 
sonal molding of its students as it is done in smaller 
schools. Doubtless 2000 pupils when once gathered 
can be more economically taught in a large school, 
but they will not be as effectively taught. The ele- 
ment of personal influence, so important in the in- 
spiration and training of teachers cannot be whole- 
saled to the best effect. 



University of Oregon Bulletin 



43 



Central vs. Local] 
Boards. 



Appropriation 
sufficient for 
Small Normal 



Our seven nor- 
mal schools in 
Wisconsin are 

controlled by one|$30,C00. 
board. We believej schools 



Smallest schools| 

in Wisconsin! 

costs more than 

Perhaps 

of the 



that this is a 
much better plan 
than the one fol- 
lowed in New 
York and Penn- 



size you indi'cate 
could be main 
tained at an an 
nual expense of 
$25,000 each, cer 



sylvania, where! tainly not for any 



|Per cent of Nor- 
| mally Trained 

Teachers. 
Of 9,000 county 
teachers 1,000 

have graduated, 
1,500 attended 

without gradua-|, 
tion in city 

schools, 3,500 

mostly normal 
graduates about 
35 per cent. 



local boards have 



too much 
fluence and 
schools are 



rn- 
the 
run 



less, in any ade- 
quate manner 



too much in the 
interest of the 
locality and not 
enough in th e in-| 
terests of the 
state at >arge. In 
our state, one 
member of the 
state board is ap- 
pointed . from 
each of the towns! 
where normal! 

schools are lo-| 
cated. This gives 
the locality all] 
the representa-| 
tion to which it| 
is really entitled.! 



Salary Schedule. 



6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 
30. 

31. 
32. 
33. 
33. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 
4C. 



3 ■ »o° 

Alabama 1,923,284 

Arizona 133,338 

Arkansas 1,366,119 

Colorado 574.030 

California 1,564,286 

Connecticut . . . 956,789 
Columbia dist. 293,217 

Florida 566,885 

Georgia 2,336,404 

Idaho 183,738 

Illinois- 5,117,036 

Indiana 2,614,223 

Iowa 2,336,484 

Kansas 1,469,969 

Kentucky 2,230,619 

Louisiana .... 1,460,237 

Maine 702,875 

Maryland 1.231,739 

Massachusetts 2,974,021 

Michigan 2,510,647 

Minnesota .... 1,857,462 
Mississippi . . . 1,629,771 

Missouri 3,227,214 

Montana 277,102 

Nebraska 1,098,139 

N. Hampshire .422,109 
New Jersey . . .2,016,797 
New Mexico . . 205,819 

New York 7.659.814 

N. Carolina. . .1,976,571 
North Dakota . . 357,594 

Ohio 4,302,860 

Oklahoma 495,285 

Oregon 437,302 

Pennsylvania .6,606,747 
Rhode Island.. 454,629 
S. Carolina . . .1,397,067 
South Dakota ..443,927 

Tennessee 2,095,233 

Texas 3,285,474 

Utah 295.404 

Vermont 347,007 

Virginia 1,919,103 

Washington . . 581.626 
W. Virginia . .1,021.106 
Wis< onsin . . . .2.155.441 





6 


SSo 




a 






ta 


HfcS 


1. 


Alabama .... 


.1,923,284 


■>,. 


Arizona 


. 133,338 


3 


Arkansas .... 


.1,366,119 


4. 


Colorado .... 


. 574,030 


5. 


< 'alifnrnia . . . 


.1,564,286 


6. 


Connecticut . . 


. 956,789 


7. 


Columbia dist. 293,217 


R. 


Florida 


. 566,885 


9. 


Georgia 


.2,336,404 


10. 


Idaho 


. 183,738 


11. 


Illinois 


.5,117,036 


12 


Indiana 


.2,614,223 


13 




.2.336,484 






.1,469,969 


15. 


Kentucky .... 


.2,230,619 


1fi. 


Louisiana . . . 


.1,460,237 


17. 


Maine 


. 702,875 


18. 


Maryland . . . 


.1,231,739 


19. 


Massachusetts 


2,974,021 


20. 


Michigan 


2,510,647 


21. 


Minnesota . . . 


.1.857,462 


22. 


Mississippi . . 


.1,629,771 


23. 


Mi'ssouri .... 


.3,227,214 


24. 


Montana 


. 277,102 


25. 


Nebraska .... 


.1,098,139 


26. 


N. Hampshire .422,109 


27. 


New Jersey . . 


.2,016,797 


28. 


New Mexico . 


. 205,819 


29. 


New York 


.7.659,814 


30. 


N. Carolina. . 


.1,976,571 


31. 


North Dakota . 


. 357,594 


3? 


Ohio 






Oklahoma . . . 


. 495,285 


33. 


Oregon 


437,302 


35. 


Pennsylvania 


.6,606,747 


36. 


Rhode Island. 


. 454,629 


37. 


S. Carolina . . 


.1,397,067 


38. 


South Dakota 


. .443,927 


39. 


Tennessee . . . 


.2,095,233 


40 


Texas 


.3,285,474 


41 


Utah 


. 295,404 


42. 


Vermont 


. 347,007 


43. 


Virginia 


.1,919,103 


44. 


Washington . 


. 581,626 


4 5. 


W. Virginia . 


.1.021,106 


to. 


Wis< onsin ... 


.2.155.441 



o 


« 




<u o 


oo 

o 


ncom 

Scho 
ng. 




tal I 

ted. 

of 
tort 






fcH 


Ha fctf 


6 


$ 75,201 (6) 


2 


29,595 (2) 


2 


12,036 (2) 


1 


67,600 


5 


189.617 (5) 


4 


38,797 


2 


32,000 (1) 


4 


58,873 (3) 


2 


2S.290 (2) 


5 


213,740 (5) 


2 


72,500 (1) 


2 


141,887 (1) 


2 


70.636 (2) 


2 


14,580 (1) 


2 


32,200 (1) 


5 


10,830 (2) 


1 


24,441 


10 


266,658 (8) 


4 


155,363 (3) 


6 


144.749 (5) 


5 


7,175 (5) 


3 


96,500 (3) 


1 


22,428 (1) 


1 


35,000 (1) 


1 


26.800(1) 


4 


',9,000 (1) 


2 


40,900 (2) 


19 


613,084(16) 


6 


69,635 (4) 


4 
.4 


17,900 (1) 


90,000 (3) 


4 


53,458 (4) 


15 


519,048 (12) 


1 


64,000 (1) 


1 


660,944 (1) 


3 


33,733 (2) 


1 


70,000 


4 


143,441 (4) 


2 


SO. 500 (1) 


3 


20,169 (3) 


3 


217.336 (3) 


3 


130,880 (3) 


6 


94,493 (6) 


9 


353,495 (9) 



E3 



$ 12,540 
14,797. 



1.696 

139 

1,604 
596 



jjgfcj 

8* Si 



32,000 


231 


19,624 


690 


14,145 


290 


42,748 


2,816 


72.500 


1,376 


141.887 


2,231 


35,318 


1,954 


7,290 


133 


32,000 


686 


5,415 


969 


24,441 


322 




1,777 


38.S20 


1,581 


24,124 


1,248 


1,435 


323 


32,166 


2,262 


22,428 


133 


35,000 


557 


26.800 


119 


79,000 (?) 


900 


20,450 


S3 




5,784 


17,408 


1,261 


17,900 


664 




519 


30,000 


638 


14.114 


409 




6,100 


64,000 


217 


60,944 


312 


16,866 


515 


70,000 


568 


35,840 


1,407 


30,500 


643 


6,723 


293 


72,445 


313 


43.026 


692 


15.747 


957 


39,276 


2,514 



181 

129 



225 
92 
164 



1.N99 
1.047 



1,674 
1,588 
1,488 



1,324 

'538 

'776 
1.069 
1,082 
2,094 
4,477 
862 



840 

1,066 

857 



b£ 



$ 2 1 8 
lis 



150 
98 
115 



141 
13S 

84 
294 
192 

65 






: ,• / 



